19 February 2007

I must admit that it's been forever and a day since I've looked at an Outdoor Life magazine. I am a member of the North American Hunting Club, but the last time I went hunting was at least 15 years ago. For one reason or another I just haven't been.

That being said, it's not my place to say what type of gun you own or what you should use it for as long as you are not robbing banks or doing something just as stupid with it. If it pleases you to own an AK or an AR, I see nothing wrong with it. If you want to own a Howitzer, I see nothing wrong with that, either.

Much has been said against the Second Amendment regarding private firearms ownership, everything from "It's not an individual right, it's so the state can have a National Guard" (established about 140 years after the Second Amendment was ratified into law) to "You can't use one of those to hunt ducks". Every one of those arguements are disingeneous at best.

The attitude of the founders where private weapons ownership is concerned comes, as did many other views, from England where it was once the law for every household to own a longbow and a collection of arrows for it. This is the equivelent of owning a .50 cal BMG with 5000 rounds. The English longbow was the premier weapon of it's day, and it was not a suggestion that every household own one...it was the law.

Not only was it law to own one, one also had to maintain proficiency with it. The reason for this is simple, in a time of war a decent army of archers could be assembled in short order.

Fast forward to the present day, many libs will say that there is no longer any need for such a requirement (which gives you the "can't hunt ducks" anti gun school of thought). The founders intended us to be a nation of riflemen, and for good reason. I'll just leave it there.

As for Zumbo, others have taken him to task and he has issued an apology. Methinks he will have a way to go before he can work his way back into Lawdog's good graces.